Two Angry Men: Yoda and BobbyB on "12 Angry Men"

Okay, this started as a discussion in the Shoutbox, but I figured I ought to move it here. Bobby hates 12 Angry Men, and I currently have it listed as my second-favorite movie of all-time. In other words...Mortal Kombat...

Here are the relevant bits:

And here we are.

FIGHT!

Adding to Netflix queue....

__________________

You...haven't...seen it...?

Not that this proves anything about the movie's overall quality, but it's listed #15 by IMDB users, just below The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, and just above Raiders of the Lost Ark.

12 Angry Men is one of the greatest movies ever made, a clever and wonderful dramatization of the strengths and weaknesses of the American legal system. Frankly anyone who doesn't think so isn't worth arguing with.

But have fun.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Hey, arguing with people whose opinions you can't even fathom is what we're all here for, right?

But yeah, brilliant film, and startingly relevant. I tend to think that there's some trade-off between being socially relevant and being timeless, but 12 Angry Men remains largely undated an incredible 50 years later. Utterly tremendous.

Then again, I like to argue, so it was bound to appeal to me a bit more than most.

It's all a matter of opinion, my good man.

The fact is, they had some doubt, but not reasonable doubt in that everything they said that would have had to happen, is all extremely unlikely. Are bits and pieces of it not out of the question? Yes, but overall, for all of what they were discussing to be true is extremely unlikely.

It's inovative in the sense that every TV sitcom has seemed to do a similar episode that goes along the lines of this movie (The star of the show is the only one who believes the one on trial and everyone else is ready to stamp him guilty) but overall the movie is very bland and circumstantial.

But like I said, it's all subjective. So if Yoda thinks it's the 2nd best movie of all time, then it's the 2nd best of all time...for him.

For me, it's really not that good.

Well, naturally, it's all opinion. But 12 Angry Men is somewhat unique in that it relies on its logic to butress certain aspects of its drama. Thus, if you disagree with that logic, we can have an actual discussion about the merits of the film's arguments, rather than simply fall into the "I liked it/I didn't" bit that so many cinematic discussions inevitably boil down to.

The movie itself has already addressed the glasses issue, and the possible complaints with it (some of them perfectly valid, but insufficient as evidence of murder), and some others -- like the bit about the knife -- are relevant because they deflect some of the initial claims of the other jurors.

You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're finding fault with the film's arguments, then certainly we can examine them objectively. So what, specifically, seems unreasonable to you? It's hard to know exactly what you mean when you simply say that you didn't find the doubt to be "reasonable" doubt.

I really enjoy this movie. Even if the plot was weak, which I don't think it is, it has one of the greatest ensemble acting performances ever given. Usually a movie with this many characters is hard to follow but 12 Angry Men is stronger with some many diverse characters which represent different segments of society.

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) is another great look at this issue as is Rashômon (1950).

On a lighter note I also like My Cousin Vinny as it looks at what is true.

Vinny Gambini: Ms. Vito, it has been argued by me, the defense, that two sets of guys met up at the Sac-O-Suds, at the same time, driving identical metallic mint green 1964 Buick Skylark convertibles. Now, can you tell us by what you see in this picture, if the defense's case holds water?
[Lisa examines the picture]
Vinny Gambini: Ms. Vito, please answer the question: does the defense's case hold water?
Mona Lisa Vito: No! The defense is wrong!
Vinny Gambini: Are you sure?
Mona Lisa Vito: I'm positive.

__________________

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."- Groucho Marx

It's been about 6 months since I watched it, but like I said, the specific arguments I hated were the knife, the old man walking down stairs and the glasses.

Also, he had no alibi and yet, they let him slide on that as well.

Well, yes, but again, I'm asking for some sort of elaboration. I've already explained some of the general thinking behind the knife, old man, and glasses, but I can't attempt to address your specific criticisms if you're not actually listing any.

If you find a given argument unconvincing, it must presumably be because you either a) think it's a total non-sequitur, or b) have a specific counterargument in mind which the film has not addressed. It can't be that you simply disagree with the the arguments made for no particular reason.

Ah, but he did. He (ironically) said he was at the movies. Juror #4 didn't buy it because he he couldn't remember what he'd seen, to which Juror #8 retorted that he'd just found out his father was murdered, before asking Juror #4 to identify movies he had seen earlier in the week (he could identify some of them).

I certainly hope you never serve juror duty.

The evidence was most definitely "reasonable" doubt. Like Yoda said, the knife was claimed to be unique and the existence of another one called into question that piece of evidence. The glasses part was also addressed, as well. An old man moving at the speed of light? Addressed.

12 Angry Men is an amazing movie, it's a pity you can't see that. Perhaps we can get you some glasses?

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

1 - They have no idea how long it would take the grandpa to get down stairs. They did that crap in the room, but that was so inexact it wasn't even funny.

2 - If she says she saw it, you have to take her word. There was nothing presented in court to say she didn't see what was going on. Peter Fonda decided to play lawyer instead of deciding on what was presented.

3 - The knife slipped out of his pocket? Convenient, eh?

I feel like Lee Cobb's character, here

As for his alibi, he didn't remember any of the actors, the plot of the movies or the names of a double feature he had just recently seen? It was a lie and anything presented like that (Cinema wise) today would be laughed at. The way they presented the case was awful.

They were supposed to judge on the facts that had been presented, and yet the writer felt it would be better to have Fonda play lawyer and start making up evidence.

The more I talk about it, the more I realize how much I hate this movie.

How do you know how exact it was? We never saw the old man. For all we know it was perfect.

Even if you assume that they got it very wrong, the time they got was three times the length the old man claimed he took. That's a positively massive difference. It wasn't even close.

You cannot completely recreate the scene, of course, and one of the jurors says as much. But you can see if 15 seconds is even plausible. And clearly, it wasn't. The old man, therefore, had severely misjugded the amount of time it took him to reach the outside landing. Couple this with the fact that he claims to have heard "I'll kill you!," despite the fact that the L-Train would have prevented him from doing so, and that's two claims the old man has made which simply don't add up.

You don't have to take her at her word at all. In fact, doing so is completely contradictory to how our system is supposed to work. You don't take every witness at their word; you poke and prod and look for inconsistencies to discern whether or not they're telling the truth, exaggerating, mistaken, etc.

The woman was sixty feet away. It was night. She saw it through the passing L-Train. She had strange marks on her eyes that we're told can only be caused by glasses, and absolutely no one wears glasses to bed. Does she have an answer for all of these things? We don't know, because the boy's lawyer never thought to ask her about them. But it calls her testimony into question, and as one juror states, "you can't send someone off to die on evidence like that."

Of course he does! That's his job. That's all their jobs. They're deciding on the boy's guilt or innocence, they're not deciding who has the better lawyer. Are you suggesting that, if they think of an argument, they shouldn't be allowed to consider it unless it was also said by one of the lawyers?

Also, the film goes out of its way on multiple occasions to highlight the fact that the boy's lawyer didn't think to ask any of the questions Juror #8 (and some others) pose throughout the film. He clearly had very poor representation.
Yes, it is convenient. But it's nowhere near enough evidence to sentence someone to die. He's not being accused of pretending to lose a knife.

I (and the film) have already answered this. The boy was questioned next to the room the murder took place, and very shortly after learning his father had been killed. Could you think clearly under those circumstances?

No evidence was made up; holes and flaws in existing evidence were exposed.

Probably because you seem either unaware of or uninterested in its underlying messages about our legal system, and people's unrealized assumptions and prejudices. Its logical arguments are fantastic, but they're not what the movie's really about. Thinking of it as simply a series of arguments misses the point entirely.

As for the movie question, the answer is yes. I would atleast be able to remember what the movie was about or what it was called.

Why not? Why can't you conclude that the old man has no clue how long it really took him to get outside? They had a man walk the same distance at roughly the same speed, and came up with a dramatically different time. That's not an assumption, that's a conclusion. What other explanation is there than that the old man was very, very mistaken? That all the other jurors watched Juror #8 walk three times as slowly and didn't notice?

And why can't you have a "reasonable doubt" about a witness's eyesight? And why can't you consider the fact that they're trying to identify a person over a long distance, at night, and through a passing train, to boot? These are things a good jury is supposed to consider. You don't just listen to what people say and then believe them. If that's the case, then there'd be no point in having a trial to begin with. The entire point is to see if there are holes in the prosecution's case.

How do you know? Also, consider the fact that movies were different then than they are now. Now, going to a movie is a bit of an event. Then, it was clearly a more casual thing. For example, Juror #4 describes going to multiple shows with his wife in the same night, if memory serves.

Far more important, however, is that having a suspicious alibi (or no alibi) does not prove murder. Not by a long shot.

You can't assume her eye sight was off that night by simply saying that she has indentions on her nose. That's simply asinine.

I think we could go round and round on this, but it comes down to personal preference. I find the writing, while innovative, incredibly circumstantial and it frustrates me.

You find the writing to be innovative and reasonable.

I just didn't like it. I can't change it. Perhaps it's my Hammurabi mindset, but I thought the evidence in support of an acquital was weak.

Yoda pointed out everything quite clearly. Everything he said would be considered reasonable doubt in a real trial. Just because they put the word "reasonable" before it does not mean there's anything special about the kind of doubt you have to experience. If you could clarify what you call reasonable doubt, that might clear up this argument.

Okay, I'm jumping in here. I've served on TWO juries in my life, and both were very much like what happened in that movie. Amazingly so. In fact, in my first jury duty experience, the first votes were 11 not guilty and just one person (ME!) voting guilty. The arguments of the 11 other people with me were ridiculous, pathetic, obvious, and totally transparent. (It was hot, we had no A/C, and everybody just wanted to go home.) It was 1986. I was pregnant with Yoda's younger brother. One old guy next to me insisted on smoking and blowing smoke in my face all three days. It was a nightmare.

I won't go into the details here (unless someone asks!), but let me just say I have always found "12 Angry Men" to be an amazing movie of just how insanely marvelous the jury system is.

Over the course of three days (for a trial that was supposed to last only one day), those 11 other people browbeat me to try to get me to change my mind. I, on the other hand, made my arguments and one by one, they all changed their minds. And we found the man guilty after three days locked in that room.

It was an amazing experience, and the movie is DEAD ON in its depiction of what it's like on a jury.

BTW, yes, that's plenty of reasonable doubt. It doesn't take much. The judge always makes it clear what reasonable doubt is, and the underlying theory is that it's better to let someone go who might be guilty than to convict an innocent person.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

Bobby, this line in your last post caught my eye:

"Perhaps it's my Hammurabi mindset, but I thought the evidence in support of an acquital was weak."

You've got it backwards. In our system, the defendant doesn't need to prove anything. He doesn't need evidence to be acquitted. The prosecution has the burden of proving his guilt. If they haven't done that to a reasonable degree, you have to vote not guilty.

Also bear in mind, the terms are significant. Voting not guilty doesn't mean you think the guy is innocent. It means you didn't see enough evidence to convict him. That's it.

Maybe you thought it was badly written....that there was quite a lot of evidence against the boy, and that every single piece of evidence was easily picked apart and discredited.

But...if you were in the jury room and everything in the script was part of a real case, how could you possibly think there is not reasonable doubt? I mean it's quite clear there's no real evidence proving him guilty....